2016 Summer rumors

[wildturkey]

First rumor dropped today with sources saying LA is expected to pursue Demar Derozan with a max contract offer.

Honestly its no surprise but the bigger question is, do you want him?

Personally, I'd rather keep Clarkson and make Whiteside a bigger prirority. Derozan is a very very good player, don't get me wrong. But he's the kind of player I think Clarkson can develop into in another year or so. If the need is filled with Clarkson, why not just keep him and make Whiteside a bigger priority since we desperately need front court players. With the cap jump, we can afford both Derozan and Whiteside (I think) but still.

 

[trojanfan12]

First rumor dropped today with sources saying LA is expected to pursue Demar Derozan with a max contract offer.

Honestly its no surprise but the bigger question is, do you want him?

Personally, I'd rather keep Clarkson and make Whiteside a bigger prirority. Derozan is a very very good player, don't get me wrong. But he's the kind of player I think Clarkson can develop into in another year or so. If the need is filled with Clarkson, why not just keep him and make Whiteside a bigger priority since we desperately need front court players. With the cap jump, we can afford both Derozan and Whiteside (I think) but still.

Tough call, imo. Do you stick with the guy you already have and hope he continues to develop or get the guy you're hoping he develops into?

They will definitely have the cap space to get both. Also, DeRozan has the size to play SF. So, the Lakers could get both and have a starting lineup of:

PG - Russell
SG - Clarkson
SF - DeRozan
PF - Randle
C - Whiteside

For me the question is if you go after Whiteside, how much do you pay him? Do you offer him a max deal or just go with say $15 million per and hope no one else offers him a max deal?

 

[lakersrule]

First rumor dropped today with sources saying LA is expected to pursue Demar Derozan with a max contract offer.

Honestly its no surprise but the bigger question is, do you want him?

Personally, I'd rather keep Clarkson and make Whiteside a bigger prirority. Derozan is a very very good player, don't get me wrong. But he's the kind of player I think Clarkson can develop into in another year or so. If the need is filled with Clarkson, why not just keep him and make Whiteside a bigger priority since we desperately need front court players. With the cap jump, we can afford both Derozan and Whiteside (I think) but still.

The Lakers can certainly afford two max contracts this summer. I'd prioritize a couple of players: Durant and Whiteside. I really do think that the Lakers have a good shot at Durant, but it's certainly contingent on a few factors. Whiteside is a force and still learning. I like DeRozan. He lacks a 3-point shot, but so does Wade and he has some chips. DeRozan stated recently that he wants to have a long career in Toronto. He may not even be an option.

 

[lakersrule]

For me the question is if you go after Whiteside, how much do you pay him? Do you offer him a max deal or just go with say $15 million per and hope no one else offers him a max deal?

It will take a max deal to sign him. No doubt about it. A lot of teams will have a lot of money to spend and there are only so many top FAs. Whiteside will certainly be one of them.

 

[trojanfan12]

It will take a max deal to sign him. No doubt about it. A lot of teams will have a lot of money to spend and there are only so many top FAs. Whiteside will certainly be one of them.

Giving Whiteside a max deal is scary to me. We just don't know how good he'll be. He looks great so far, is young, seems to have tremendous upside and the Lakers have access to the greatest center ever to play to work with him. But there's a reason that everyone passed him by. Heck, the Heat only gave him a shot because they were desperate.

You're probably right about it taking a max deal to get him though. Would sure put a crimp in the rebuild if that money went to his head.

 

[wildturkey]

Couple thoughts:

I haven't looked at the salary #s since its still a ways off and was fairly certain LA could afford 2 max guys but does that also include signing Clarkson? Because Clarkson is gonna bring at least 15 mil I'd think. I think the answer is yes but I'm only like 60% sure

I'd have Durant as top priority but I wouldn't get my hopes up. Financially speaking, it makes FAR more sense for him to sign a one year deal to stay in OKC and enter FA in 2017. He's one year away from being eligible for the 35% maximum contract reserved for players with 10+ seasons played. That extra 5% increase is can be 20 to 30 extra mil depending on how the contract is. When you toss in OKC has a new coach (one extra year to gel) and that his buddy Westbrook is also up in 2017 (they could be Lakers together!), it makes all the sense in the world for him to stay.

Whiteside is definitely getting a max offer. Someone will pay it. If you want him, you gotta pay the asking price. I've struggled with the idea of it with what @trojanfan12 said, I could totally see him checking out once he's paid, but I think its worth the risk ultimately.

I know Derozan can play SF but I had him a lower priority because I'm hoping LA already has a SF named Simmons by the time July comes

 

[trojanfan12]

Couple thoughts:

I haven't looked at the salary #s since its still a ways off and was fairly certain LA could afford 2 max guys but does that also include signing Clarkson? Because Clarkson is gonna bring at least 15 mil I'd think. I think the answer is yes but I'm only like 60% sure

I'd have Durant as top priority but I wouldn't get my hopes up. Financially speaking, it makes FAR more sense for him to sign a one year deal to stay in OKC and enter FA in 2017. He's one year away from being eligible for the 35% maximum contract reserved for players with 10+ seasons played. That extra 5% increase is can be 20 to 30 extra mil depending on how the contract is. When you toss in OKC has a new coach (one extra year to gel) and that his buddy Westbrook is also up in 2017 (they could be Lakers together!), it makes all the sense in the world for him to stay.

Whiteside is definitely getting a max offer. Someone will pay it. If you want him, you gotta pay the asking price. I've struggled with the idea of it with what @trojanfan12 said, I could totally see him checking out once he's paid, but I think its worth the risk ultimately.

I know Derozan can play SF but I had him a lower priority because I'm hoping LA already has a SF named Simmons by the time July comes

Clarkson should be able to be re-signed even if the Lakers land 2 max guys because he's their FA. So, if they need to, they can go over the cap to retain him. I don't think they'll have to though because they already have room for a max player, plus Kobe will be off the books and the cap is going to make a huge jump.

Yeah, that's the thing with Whiteside. He's going to get max money from someone. I suppose, in the end, it's better to take the chance (especially if the final year of the contract is team option) that he doesn't live up to the contract, than to have him go somewhere else and become an all-star. Plus, he's young and a 7 footer. They will always be able to unload him for a draft pick or 2 if he's not panning out. You can't teach size, so someone will think they can turn him around.

 

[lakersrule]

Lakers may benefit by matching a Jordan Clarkson offer sheet this summer

This article from Pincus describes the different contract scenarios for Clarkson.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

The team will be going for every big name on the market. Especially as they have money to burn!

 

[trojanfan12]

The team will be going for every big name on the market. Especially as they have money to burn!

I see Dwight can be a free agent if he opts out.

 

[tomodach10]

OH NO! Nets after Thibodeau.

 

[wildturkey]

OH NO! Nets after Thibodeau.

That's actually a smart move for them which is surprising seeing as its the Nets. Considering you have no draft picks to build anything, might as well get a coach that's proven to get the most out of your players since tanking can't help you.

 

[tomodach10]

That's actually a smart move for them which is surprising seeing as its the Nets. Considering you have no draft picks to build anything, might as well get a coach that's proven to get the most out of your players since tanking can't help you.

It is a smart move for them. I would have loved him here for next season, but oh well.

 

[wildturkey]

It is a smart move for them. I would have loved him here for next season, but oh well.

He hasn't agreed so there's still a chance. Heck, far as I know, they haven't had any talks whatsoever. Its just a report that Brooklyn likes him.

 

[trojanfan12]

I think that Thibs is a really good coach to an extent, but isn't he really just the D'Antoni of defense? Everyone bashed D'Antoni because of his all offense, no defense, "we'll just outscore them" approach. But Thibs has basically an all defense, no offense, "we'll just hold them under 90" approach.

The Bulls won a lot with that approach, but it never got them to the finals, even when they were favored and had HCA. They always ran into someone more balanced (like D'Antoni's Suns teams).

Whether you lose 120-115 or 85-80, you still lost. One is just more fun to watch than the other. I'm not saying that Thibs wouldn't be better than Scott or that the Lakers shouldn't hire him if they get the chance. Just that they need to be careful with bringing in a one dimensional coach.

 

[tomodach10]

I think that Thibs is a really good coach to an extent, but isn't he really just the D'Antoni of defense? Everyone bashed D'Antoni because of his all offense, no defense, "we'll just outscore them" approach. But Thibs has basically an all defense, no offense, "we'll just hold them under 90" approach.

The Bulls won a lot with that approach, but it never got them to the finals, even when they were favored and had HCA. They always ran into someone more balanced (like D'Antoni's Suns teams).

Whether you lose 120-115 or 85-80, you still lost. One is just more fun to watch than the other. I'm not saying that Thibs wouldn't be better than Scott or that the Lakers shouldn't hire him if they get the chance. Just that they need to be careful with bringing in a one dimensional coach.

Yeah he is known for only defense, but maybe he has learned from his last experience and make the adjustments offensively. I think he will be a better coach this time.

 

[trojanfan12]

Yeah he is known for only defense, but maybe he has learned from his last experience and make the adjustments offensively. I think he will be a better coach this time.

Hopefully. At the least, maybe he'll bring in someone to handle the offense since that's not his forte. Of course, the Lakers have to hire him first.

 

[wildturkey]

I think that Thibs is a really good coach to an extent, but isn't he really just the D'Antoni of defense? Everyone bashed D'Antoni because of his all offense, no defense, "we'll just outscore them" approach. But Thibs has basically an all defense, no offense, "we'll just hold them under 90" approach.

The Bulls won a lot with that approach, but it never got them to the finals, even when they were favored and had HCA. They always ran into someone more balanced (like D'Antoni's Suns teams).

Whether you lose 120-115 or 85-80, you still lost. One is just more fun to watch than the other. I'm not saying that Thibs wouldn't be better than Scott or that the Lakers shouldn't hire him if they get the chance. Just that they need to be careful with bringing in a one dimensional coach.

He'd benefit from a Gentry type assistant but he's better on offense than you might give him credit for. It's not flashy but it gets the job done grinding it out. He's had teams close to the top 10 in offense before. And had Rose stayed healthy, he'd likely have gotten at least one of those Bulls teams to the Finals. Some of those teams were a patchwork of guys when Rose and Noah were banged up and they were still giving teams fits. That's pretty impressive.

 

[OutlawImmortal]

He'd benefit from a Gentry type assistant but he's better on offense than you might give him credit for. It's not flashy but it gets the job done grinding it out. He's had teams close to the top 10 in offense before. And had Rose stayed healthy, he'd likely have gotten at least one of those Bulls teams to the Finals. Some of those teams were a patchwork of guys when Rose and Noah were banged up and they were still giving teams fits. That's pretty impressive.

The only thing that worries me is the stigma he carries about running his players into the ground. I would not be surprised if that ended up being an undeserved critcism though.

 

[wildturkey]

The only thing that worries me is the stigma he carries about running his players into the ground. I would not be surprised if that ended up being an undeserved critcism though.

He does play them heavy minutes though so it is partially true. But I think he gets unfair blame as if that was the reason Derrick Rose crumbled.